About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

51 Tex. L. Rev. 743 (1972-1973)
Binding Effect of Federal Declaratory Judgments on State Courts

handle is hein.journals/tlr51 and id is 765 raw text is: The Binding Effect of Federal Declaratory Judgments on State Courts John H. Martin The Supreme Court long ago determined that under the suprem- acy clause its interpretations of federal constitutional law are binding on all inferior courts, state and federal.' The Court, however, has never held that a state court is bound by a lower federal court judgment holding a state statute unconstitutional. Similarly, no federal court has ever found that such judgments are binding on state courts except as the doc- trine of res judicata applies to the actual litigants.2 Moreover, by en- acting the anti-injunction statute3 and the three-judge court acts,4 Congress has carefully delimited the situations in which lower federal courts may interfere with state enforcement of state statutes. As a result, state courts have felt free to adopt, ignore, or modify lower federal court determinations to whatever degree they desired. The question of what binding effect to give federal court judg- ments plays a key role in preserving the delicate balance within the fed- eral system. If state courts are permitted to ignore federal constitu- tional rulings with impunity, serious deprivations of individual con- stitutional rights may result. On the other hand, if federal judgments are given a broad binding effect, a single erroneous federal district court declaration could block a whole set of constitutionally permissible state criminal prosecutions, a result that jars with the Supreme Court's concern for comity in federal-state court relations. The binding effect accorded federal determinations in habeas 1. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). See, e.g., Henry v. City of Rock Hill, 376 U.S. 776 (1964). 2. See United States ex rel Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1076 (7th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 983 (1971). The term binding effect is defined here as a rule of law requiring state courts to follow certain federal adjudications just as federal courts in diversity cases are bound to follow state law determinations made by state courts, and just as any court is bound by the principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel. Of course, a federal injunction against state court proceedings binds state courts, but the binding effect of an injunction refers to the direct equitable power of the federal court to interfere with state court proceedings, rather than the more indirect binding effect of a rule of law. 3. 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (1970). 4. Id. § 2281. 743

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most